Quote:
|
I think it's true that good SF demands more of the reader than does fantasy.
|
I think this needs qualification. I'd agree that
good SF demands more of the reader than
lots of fantasy. But I don't agree that it can be used as a catch-all, by any means.
There's examples in both (sub-)genres that demand more (or less) of the reader. I'd be willing to go as far as saying; "there's
more SF out there that demands more of the reader than there is of Fantasy that does the same thing," but that's about it. "Demanding more" of a reader is something an
author decides to do, rather than being an inherent trait of the subject matter, I think. They're both (the genres) equally capable of producing challenging material or mindless entertainment, depending on what the author is trying to achieve.
Part of the problem also lies with the fact that many people are resolutely wedded to the idea that "fantasy" means dungeons, dragons, elves and/or hobbits and magic. These are usually the same people who don't care to read fantasy.
I stopped worrying about the distinction between the two when I realized that the labels rarely affect my reading selections—or my overall experience/appreciation of those selections. In fact, they only seem to affect
other peoples' opinions of my reading selections ... which I long ago stopped giving two hoots about. I read science fiction by David Brin because I enjoy his "world-building" skills and fantasy by K. J. Parker because I enjoy her/his prose, tragic characters and social subtext.
